Page 1 of 4

$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 3876/2021 & CM No. 11674/2021

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Nageswar Rao and Ms. Deepika

Agarwal, Advs.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate along

with Mr. Shlok chandra and Ms.

Mansie Jain and Shrey chakrobatry,

Advs. for revenue.

Ms. Suman Chauhan & Mr. Yogender

Chauhan, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1.

Pursuant to the last date of hearing, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, who appears

for respondent nos. 1 to 3/revenue, says that the counter-affidavit has been

filed. Mr. Nageswar Rao, who appears for the petitioner, affirms that he has

received a copy of the aforesaid counter-affidavit.

2. It is, however, Mr. Rao‟s submission that the issue, which arises for

consideration in the present petition, is squarely covered by the judgement

of this Court dated 22.04.2021, passed in W.P.(C) No. 9051/2020, titled

Concentrix Services Netherlands B. V. vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) &

2021:DHC:1808-DB

Page 2 of 4

Anr¹.

2.1.

Mr. Bhatia, on the other hand, says that, although, the issue arising in

the present petition is covered by the aforementioned judgment, the

petitioner, unlike the Concentrix case, can take recourse to an alternate

remedy.

3. To our minds, in these proceedings, if this is the only defence

available to respondent nos. 1 to 3/revenue, as is evident from Mr. Bhatia‟s

submission, i.e., an alternative remedy is available with the petitioner, we

are not inclined to reject this petition on that score.

3.1.

As has been observed by this Court and other courts including the

Supreme Court in several judgments,analternate remedy is a self-imposed

limitation placed on itself by the Court. It does not prevent the Court from

entertaining an action, if it, otherwise, has jurisdiction in the matter. [See

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO², (1961) 2 SCR 241; Also see

Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks³, (1998) 8 SCC 1]

1In short „ConcentrixCase‟

2“27. Mr Sastri mentioned more than once the fact that the Company would have

sufficient opportunity to raise this question viz. whether the Income Tax Officer had

reason to believe that underassessment had resulted from non-disclosure of material facts,

before the Income Tax Officer himself in the assessment proceedings and if unsuccessful

there before the appellate officer or the Appellate Tribunal or in the High Court under

Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The existence of such alternative remedy

is not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ

or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such

action.”

[Emphasis is ours]

3“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is

plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This

power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of

habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement

of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for

2021:DHC:1808-DB

Page 3 of 4

3.2.

In this case, particularly, we do not see any purpose in relegating the

petitioner to the alternate forum, in view of the fact that the issue raised

stands already covered by the judgment of this Court in Concentrix case;

there being no dispute qua the facts. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court,

in ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India

Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553⁴ has observed that even where the facts are disputed,

it does not, willy-nilly, restrain a writ Court from entertaining